God bless Edith for taking on this fight for all GLBT persons whose relationships are seen as null and void in the eyes of our great nation. Marriage Equality for all!!!

10:09 am March 27, 2013

MM wrote:

Sure JC, but your fight should be against the Clinton's for starting this in the first place. You won't blame them, however. You will attack some other conservative outpost.

When you get down to it, all this is really just an expensive project in what to name your dog. We already have one dog named "marriage", and you want the new dog named "marriage". Different dogs should have different names. But they certainly should be allowed to eat and drink from the same bowls.

10:11 am March 27, 2013

Willis wrote:

Can you please explain how you are able to get commentary while arguments are still ongoing in an electronics-free zone at the Supreme Court? Very much appreciate it but curious. Are you able to rotate correspondents in and out?

10:18 am March 27, 2013

CM wrote:

We used to have a white dog named marriage... I suppose we should have named the interracial dog "Smith." I think Smith is a good name for a dog! And Smith can eat and drink from the same.... oh, wait... no... that's an absurd metaphor and line of reasoning. Best we just realize it isn't a dog, it's the definition of a relationship being applied to individuals who choose to make the commitment. Much cleaner, and then we don't have to keep naming dogs. I mean, that's a big responsibility.

10:20 am March 27, 2013

TK wrote:

MM: I am not embracing the anology of what my wife and I have with a dog but I agree with your point. Marriage is the union of a man and woman that can result in procreation, period. Same sex couples should be allowed a civil union with the same tax and insurance benefits my wife and I enjoy.

10:25 am March 27, 2013

Inaccurate description of arguments wrote:

You are wrong to write that all agree that House has standing.

The pro-DOMA litigants have argued that the House does not have standing, but that the US does, and that is all that matters..The pro-DOMA litigants believe the US's presence in the case--it is bound by the judgment, even though the US thinks it is correct--is what creates justiciability.

EDITOR'S NOTE: We are making a correction now and will write a post clarifying their positions.

10:25 am March 27, 2013

David wrote:

TK: That's a valid position if you actually stand by it. Do you think that the civil unions for gay couples should be the same, and have the same legal standing as the civil unions for straight couple who cannot procreate?

10:27 am March 27, 2013

David wrote:

TK: That's a valid position if you actually stand by it. Do you think the civil unions for gay couples should be the same, and have the same legal standing, as the civil unions for straight couples who cannot procreate?

10:28 am March 27, 2013

Scott wrote:

MM: Your argument is being avoided because the court already ruled that separate but equal is discriminatory in past cases of discrimination. I agree that some of this is semantics, but it is not only about semantics, it is about rights given to a certain class of people not given to another (in Edith Windsor's case, inheritance rights). If the semantics is such an issue, the government should get out of "marriage" and provide "civil unions" for any two people who want to have a contractual union with the same rights for all and leave the distinction of "marriage" to the religious.

10:30 am March 27, 2013

JC wrote:

MM... I am not attacking anyone...not my style. Just giving credit to someone brave enough to fight what she believes in unjust. Cut the negativity. And as a gay man I could care less what you call my union, just make 100% equal in benefits...not name just benefits.

10:36 am March 27, 2013

LSD wrote:

MM: You say that "marriage is the union of a man and woman that can result in procreation." So in a case where procreation is not possible between a man and woman (e.g, Justice Kagan's example of two 55 year old folks marrying), I guess we cannot call it marriage.

10:40 am March 27, 2013

laura pol wrote:

Hopefully we make history today. Legalized marriage or not, homosexuality is not ever going to end. Might as well give us some rights!

10:47 am March 27, 2013

LSD wrote:

The whole marrying for sole purpose of procreation is such a ridiculous thing to say. Then infertile men and woman shouldn't be allowed to get married the same way homesexuals aren't. Now I understand the opposition to 2 gay people getting married in a christian church, because obviously that would be a complete violation of the religion, etc... but marriage as in going to court and having all the benefits and being recognized by the government as a union, everyone should have that right and benefit.

10:47 am March 27, 2013

Laura Pol wrote:

I meant to say @LSD not that LSD wrote that

10:51 am March 27, 2013

B wrote:

The standing question was over whether Chadha had standing, not the INS, who clearly had standing. This case is being cited for the proposition that the House can participate in cases.

11:08 am March 27, 2013

GKamburoff wrote:

We are growing up.

11:08 am March 27, 2013

SybilT wrote:

DID the Executive Branch seek Supreme Court review? Or did the so-called *Bipartisan* Legal Advisory Committee, i.e., House and Senate Republicans, file the cert petition?

11:14 am March 27, 2013

john warren wrote:

interesting comments about "benefits" from gay, must be the real reason(s)

11:16 am March 27, 2013

Not defending the consitutionality of an act? wrote:

Actually, there is precedent. The Reagan Administration declined to defend the constitutionality of the Federal Elections Commission Act (FECA). The Solicitor General, who one would have thought would be the point man in defending the act, instead derided the act as "a FECAL matter". The Solicitor General's name? Robert Bork.

11:17 am March 27, 2013

Anonie wrote:

If the court thinks the Executive gets to decide laws are unconstitutional and should not be enforced, would it like to overrule Marbury v. Madison?

11:18 am March 27, 2013

tea baggers tears taste so sweet wrote:

tea baggers heads are going to explode again after losing this one. the health care ruling all over again

11:20 am March 27, 2013

obviously that would be a complete violation of the religion wrote:

the list of things that used to be a violation, but are now common practice within the church is so long, it invalidates their entire argument. Christians pick and choose which rules they want to follow and when they want to follow them. they are all hypocritic fools.

11:25 am March 27, 2013

teo wrote:

Thank you for providing this blog/up-to-minute interpretation of the goings-on inside the courtroom. On DOMA, I have three points:

1.) how can a contract signed in Iowa and enforced in Iowa not also be enforced in, say, Texas? Does the full faith/credit clause mean anything?
2.) As for government choosing to enforce it, Justice is essentially saying that we think a marriage is a marriage. If you're married in Iowa or Massachusetts or Connecticut and you move to Detroit or Phoenix or Miami, you're still considered married and the agreements in place in Iowa carry to Texas or wherever. But given the federal law defines marriage as between opposite sexes, the federal benefits of tax structure are not available until the federal constitutional issue is resolved.
3.) One comment on yesterday: my hetrosexual marriage is not and will never be harmed by anyone else's marriage -- gay or straight.

11:31 am March 27, 2013

JAX Navy wrote:

Defense of Marriage? I can't imagine gays could possibly do any more damage to the institution of marriage than Arnold Schwarzenegger, Kim Kardashian or Charley Sheen have already done.

11:32 am March 27, 2013

to the stupid guy with the teabag comment wrote:

if we win against DOMA im comming for you to teabag your face.

also, @john warren yes benefits are a main point, because even if im with my partner for 30 years and this stupid DOMA law is still up they are not even considered immediate family, if im on a death bed they dont even have permission to see me. So yes, i want all those rights. If I am to pass away I want my partner and kids to be able inherit my benefits, If i am well established I want them to be able to have health care under my insurance.

11:34 am March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"The whole marrying for sole purpose of procreation is such a ridiculous thing to say."

Then incestuous marriage must be permitted.

11:34 am March 27, 2013

RB wrote:

Chief Justice Roberts in not the only one irritated with the Obama admininstration, the hubris and arrogance of which is reaching new heights!

11:34 am March 27, 2013

Fred wrote:

"The Supreme Court hears arguments on the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition and benefits for cats and dogs calling themselves people."

This is how ludicrous the gay argument sounds. Two dudes are not a married couple. Gays do not have a right to force others to support their sickness.

11:34 am March 27, 2013

James wrote:

Justice Roberts is being sassy

11:35 am March 27, 2013

Jones wrote:

Misguided Cretans don't understand how the parts fit..

11:36 am March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

" how can a contract signed in Iowa and enforced in Iowa not also be enforced in, say, Texas? "

Happens all the time. State laws vary.

11:36 am March 27, 2013

Jim wrote:

To JC:

To what God are you praying for blessings? The Lord heareth not sinners. Christ and God were beyond clear. Homosexuality is an abomination. In case you misunderstood, that's bad.

11:38 am March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

@Fred - Right on the money!

11:38 am March 27, 2013

GM wrote:

Perhaps the supreme court should have the courage to interpret the law as is the goal of the judicial branch of the U.S. Governement and not attempt to push blame onto the Executive branch of the government...

11:38 am March 27, 2013

Gays do not have a right to force others to support their sickness. wrote:

who ever dared to call tea baggers bigots?

11:38 am March 27, 2013

JC wrote:

Odumba is back!!! Not that I agree with your comments in any way but great to see an opposing argument...for it is the land of the free.

11:39 am March 27, 2013

chengster wrote:

Can anyone tell me if there is an "affection" clause in any of the state's marriage laws? Can people (heterosexuals) get married purely for the benefits with no intent on procreating or creating a family structure?

11:42 am March 27, 2013

JC wrote:

@Jim - I am praying to the God I believe in that loves me no matter what. Not a God the hates me. For Christ is the love of God...not the hate of God. And please inform me of any of Christ's words from the New Testament that condemns me specifically?

11:43 am March 27, 2013

John wrote:

"Two dudes are not a married couple."

Actually, Fred, two dudes are not a married couple unless they get married, and according to the law, they can get married in Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, Maryland, and Washington States. It is possible that California will be added to that list by July. And two women can get married in those states as well. It has been in the news but perhaps you missed it.

"Gays do not have a right to force others to support their sickness."

To what support are you referring?

11:45 am March 27, 2013

John wrote:

"Christ and God were beyond clear. Homosexuality is an abomination. In case you misunderstood, that’s bad."

Please cite all the times Christ addressed the issue of homosexuality directly.

If so, i think the institution of marriage has bigger problems than questions about the plumbing of the people seeking to marry.

11:46 am March 27, 2013

tt wrote:

have you homophobes heard of thy shall not judge?...there is only one that may judge and i dont believe it is you or i to say what is right or wrong. This country should not give benefits to one group of people without the other. It is called equality. If you believe homosexuality is a sin, may I ask of each and every one of you, Have you sinned? or how many sins do you commit a day? will you be judged? will you be forgiven because you have a loving, excepting heart of thy neighbors. think about it. this should not be about religion but it is about equality

11:46 am March 27, 2013

Jim in MN wrote:

Did they even bring up BLAG defending this? BLAG (Bipartisan Legal ADVISORY Group) is not Congress... its 5 people, 2 of them didnt even agree with defending DOMA in court. Congress is not REPRESENTING a defense, a subgroup of the house of representatives is... not even the full house, and NONE of the senate... since when is "Congress" meant to be solely composed of 5 people? Isn't BLAG's entire purpose to ADVISE and work WITH the senate to provide amicus curiae briefs? I SINCERELY hope that is brought up. Because, to me, thats the *REAL* re-defining going on here.

11:46 am March 27, 2013

JC wrote:

@John - Right on the money man!

Editor Comment

11:48 am March 27, 2013

WSJ Staff wrote:

Thanks for your note -- We are correcting this now and will state their positions on standing in a new post shortly.

>>Inaccurate description of arguments wrote :
You are wrong to write that all agree that House has standing.

The pro-DOMA litigants have argued that the House does not have standing, but that the US does, and that is all that matters..The pro-DOMA litigants believe the US’s presence in the case–it is bound by the judgment, even though the US thinks it is correct–is what creates justiciability.

11:51 am March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

Poor, sad homosexuals - always trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Do you really think a fraudulent government license is somehow going to validate what you do?

Pathetic.

11:54 am March 27, 2013

SL wrote:

Chengster: There is no affection clause. Any opposite sex couple can get married for any reason and historically, marriage between children of well to do families was arranged to consolidate fortunes and influence. So, the reasons for marriage are many and can't be simply defined as just for procreation. The argument falls apart on careful examination, and likely will be laughed at in hindsight in the future.

11:55 am March 27, 2013

Herb Spencer wrote:

MIA on Day Two: any discussion of the wrongful resurgence of the dispensing power, and why Obama/Holder's use of it has thrown the government and the issues in this case into such disarray. The lawyers and the JJs dance around it, but never quite land on it. Perhaps, sadly, because some of them don't even know what it is.

11:56 am March 27, 2013

tt wrote:

what ever happened to love thy neighbor? there is only one judge and i dont believe it is you or I. If these homophobes believe that homosexuality is a sin than may I ask this. Have you ever sinned? or how many times a day do you sin? will you be forgiven? is divorce in the bible? I think the only arguement homophobes have is religion. How many atheists get married every day? should they be able to get "married" when they dont believe in God. YOU people crack me up. This is about equality. and when the government chose to give rights and benefits to a certain group of people I tuly believe they forgot about what our constitution states. so whether you want to call it a marriage or a civil union all rights should be the same. ******CHRISTIANS FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE

11:57 am March 27, 2013

Greenie wrote:

And for me this is the whole point Why do we have laws passed when any administration is free to ignore them. This is a whole new can of worms. Don't like immigration laws.... Don't defend them. Don't like tax rates because they are too high, don't collect them or enforce them (and broadcast that fact). Don't like a law congress passes making guy marriage legal, jjust don't enforce it. So, I hope everyone is ok if a conservative administration comes in and says it won't sue a state that doesn't want it. It would be doing the same thing. So, what am I missing here. How can justice or an administration Not enforce laws passed by congress and signed into law?

11:57 am March 27, 2013

Michael wrote:

To: Jim
This nation was founded upon the principle of separation of church and state. Whether or not your god believes that I am an "abomination" for being a gay man is not the issue here. The issue is rather that I am a full-fledged American citizen, just the same as you are. Therefore, we are all entitled to the same civil rights and to equal protection under the law, including my right to marry the man I love and to have it legally recognized by my government. The concept is not difficult to understand, really!

11:58 am March 27, 2013

John wrote:

"Do you really think a fraudulent government license is somehow going to validate what you do?"

Please explain how a license issued by the State of NY, for example, is fraudulent. I look forward to reading your explanation.

12:00 pm March 27, 2013

fwf wrote:

Because the Obama administration's most notable characteristic is that of an overbearing parent of a spoiled child who when apprised of the irrational and inappropriate behavior of their child only goes on to defend its behavior and blame the society (or whoever or whatever the authority may be) and and it's rules for creating the problem of the child's behavior.

It's never the fault of the child or it's parent in Obama's view, but rather the social or political strictures that interfere with them getting what they want.

12:00 pm March 27, 2013

Laura wrote:

To Michael:

Couldn't have said it any better. If I have to pay taxes as all 'straight' people do, i should be entitled to get married as well.

12:04 pm March 27, 2013

Robin King wrote:

Will Homosexual Marriage be defined by the same standards as Heterosexual Marriage? That is, will consumation be required, infidelity grounds for divorce, marital rights of sexual congress provided for, consanguinuity prohibited? If the same values regarding physical intimacy and blood relationship do not apply, people could marry their near relatives or even their pet animals. The transfer of benefits such as social security payments and insurance coverage would be passed on endlessly; the cost is staggering.

12:05 pm March 27, 2013

JC wrote:

To Odumba's "always trying to fit a square peg in a round hole."

It's actually a round peg...

12:12 pm March 27, 2013

TS wrote:

"JC wrote :
To Odumba’s 'always trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.'

It’s actually a round peg…"

I'm glad that I wasn't the only one thinking that. Well done!

12:12 pm March 27, 2013

teo wrote:

Odumba, public acts in State A are enforceable in State B. This is why we don't have to be married each time we move. This is the nature of the full faith and credit clause in the US Constitution, which is what DOMA is trying to overturn.

Fred is obviously a kook. there is no need to dignify his comments w/ a remark

12:13 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

" If the same values regarding physical intimacy and blood relationship do not apply, people could marry their near relatives or even their pet animals."

Of course, right now, people can and do leave their possessions to animals. Leona Helmsley did it. As for marrying animals, can you cite any place in the Western world where as a result of legalization of gay marriage, it has led to any legislation regarding the interspecies marriage? Has it happened in any of the states in the US in which gay marriage is legal?

And my goodness, how many of those who object to gay marriage seem preoccupied by incest. I am making no judgments, but it does seem concern that might be more revelatory of those preoccupied by incest than those who have never mentioned it. Food for thought?

12:13 pm March 27, 2013

K wrote:

sounds like the justices on Supreme Court don't want to be responsible for making a decision at all!
funny...because that's what they were hired to do in the first place.

earn you keep.

12:18 pm March 27, 2013

Mary Ellen Capek wrote:

This is truly weird: Clement arguing for equal discrimination?

12:18 pm March 27, 2013

Unanimity wrote:

As of 11:08am, it sounds like all 9 judges might agree on: (1) Obama is a gutless b-stard for refusing to defend DOMA yet enforcing it, thus making the SCOTUS decide on it--if he really thinks it is unconstitutional, why didn't have have the guts to hand this lady back her $300,000 of estate tax???, and (2) the Fed gov't has no basis overruling what the states decide a legit marriage is. Must say I agree with both positions, too.

12:20 pm March 27, 2013

Alex Cherry wrote:

To the "people" attempting to use the (well and thoroughly debunked) slippery slope argument regarding animals and children and toasters and clouds, I have two words for you:

Informed consent.

To the "people" attempting to make religious arguments:

Hey, that's great that your god(s) think that. Mine doesn't. What makes your better than mine? Should we pass some Sharia laws to satisfy the Muslims, or make all food Kosher by law for the Hasidic Jews? Somehow, I didn't think so. So then, we agree that we shouldn't make laws to favor one religion over another. Good! Now, since we agree on that, we agree that gay marriage should be legal on a civil level, since while your religion is opposed to it, mine's not, and we wouldn't want to make laws restricting one person's freedom of religion, would we? Because if we do, man, I can't wait to see what liberties you lose!

12:22 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

"(1) Obama is a gutless b-stard for refusing to defend DOMA yet enforcing it, thus making the SCOTUS "

I am not certain that you understand how the Supreme Court works. The SC has the option to grant certiorari (accept the case), or refuse to grant cert. If the SC grants cert, it has chosen to make a judgment on it. The President - not Reagan, Bush, Obama, Jefferson - make the SC decide anything. Since the SC granted cert, they chose to rule on this matter.

You may loathe President Obama, but that is immaterial to what the SC decides to review.

12:27 pm March 27, 2013

Michael wrote:

To Robin:
Civil "marriage" should be "marriage" regardless of whether it's between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man, with all that that entails.. The same obligations and the same benefits should accrue from a legally-recognized marriage regardless of the sex of the two spouses. Depriving me of the ability to provide for the continued well-being of my same-sex spouse by leaving him my social security benefit after my death, in the name of managing the federal budget, is offensive to me and to other legally married gay people. In addition, it is unfair and unequal treatment under federal law.

12:29 pm March 27, 2013

Mack wrote:

"Chief Justice Roberts repeatedly expressed irritation at the Obama administration, telling Ms. Jackson, the court-appointed lawyer, and without specifically mentioning the administration, that perhaps the government should have the "courage" to execute the law based on the constitutionality rather instead of shifting the responsibility to the Supreme Court to make a decision."
In the ObamaCare case, Roberts said it isn't the Court's job to over rule Congress if Congress.
Then he agreed with what Congress did.
He seems to think that if Congress and the president act as he would act were he in their shoes then the Court could sip tea all day and never decide the tough cases because there wouldn't be any.
How much are we paying this wimp?

12:29 pm March 27, 2013

Nathan wrote:

Justice Kennedy, if federal government's role in regulating marriage is such a question, are we to suppose you think we should also overturn the legalizing of interracial marriage?

12:30 pm March 27, 2013

Jeff wrote:

To Alex:

Can I get an AMEN! Thank you.

12:36 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

Nathan -- the federal government could not ban interracial marriage because doing so would violate teh federal constitution. The issue here is whether the federal government has the authority -- under our federalism system of government, where the federal government has limited powers and states and localities have powers not identified in the Constitution as federal in nature -- to define marriage as between one man and one woman. And I think Kennedy may have suggested that there is nothing in the US Constitution that allows this. Of ocurse, ironically, the anti-health-care crowd is likely arguing that the Commerce Clause -- the much-despised Commerce Clause -- allows states to define marriage because doing so affects interstate commerce.

12:37 pm March 27, 2013

Avi Bueno (@JasperAvi) wrote:

So, did Clement really just argue that the federal government has an acute interest in treating all gay marriages/couples in an equally discriminatory fashion? Wow.

12:39 pm March 27, 2013

Cam wrote:

If the marriage is legal in a state that recognizes gay marriage, but then the couple moves to another state I would think that their marriage darn well should be recognized by the federal government.

12:42 pm March 27, 2013

Mike K wrote:

"Justice Elena Kagan (pictured) follows a short time later saying DOMA did things the federal government hadn’t done before, and she said the law raised red flags."

Shouldn't the same have been asked about ObamaCare using this logic?

12:43 pm March 27, 2013

Objective Truth wrote:

Since when did those who are afflicted with same sex attraction become a human rights issue? Can we expect to push poligamy as the next cause célèbre.

12:44 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

@Robin King - you should have stopped while you were ahead. How does questioning whether people marrying their pets have ANYTHING to do with the question of marriage which required legal consent? I stopped readying your post right after that, realizing that maybe you lack something.

12:48 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

'Since when did those who are afflicted with same sex attraction become a human rights issue?"

You call same sex attraction an affliction. By what standard are you judging it an affliction? Would you call being blue-eyed an affliction? Being tall an affliction? Please differentiate being blue-eyed and having same sex attraction, and why one, according to you, is an affliction.

12:51 pm March 27, 2013

Kerry Sakolsky wrote:

Marriage between a man and woman for the sake of procreation is an ideology. It's absurd to mention procreation; many heterosexual couples can't or won't, nor is it required by law. Quoting scripture makes for a weak argument, since we are all entitled to our own beliefs Under Freedom of Religion.

The Supreme Court has been politicizing this case. They have issued statements about statements, and arguments regarding procedure. Hopefully, they will decide America is truly the land of the free, and grant the gay community their right as its citizens.

12:55 pm March 27, 2013

Xenophon wrote:

The reason we have states is to take care of cultural issues like these. Perverts have their own communities and they should live in them, and stop asking the rest of us to formally approve of and subsidize their degenerate lifestyles. I can tolerate these people if they don't shove their perversion in my face. Live and let live. Stay on your own side of the fence and we'll get along just fine.

12:57 pm March 27, 2013

MaryQ wrote:

Strange, Objective Truth, that you should call my same sex orientation an "affliction." I consider your small minded bigotry a fatal disease.

12:58 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

Questioned Barry's handling of the case? What handling?

Barry has been derelict in his duty to defend laws the people through their representatives have passed.

12:59 pm March 27, 2013

Felix wrote:

Marriage - heterosexual or same sex - is not protected by the Constitution.
Neither is it prohibited by the Constitution.
The court has no business in this matter.
Politicians have no business in this matter.
If 2 adults want to enter into a legal contract,
it's their business and no one else's.
Next?

12:59 pm March 27, 2013

@Xenophon wrote:

That's pretty much how the vast majority of the people in this country feel. Homosexuals insist on bringing their behavior into the public square.

12:59 pm March 27, 2013

JC wrote:

Hooray degenerates!

1:00 pm March 27, 2013

Xevioso wrote:

Nope, Xenophon. You do not get to live your life free from being around "perverts". Gay folks are around you, whether you like it or not, and they demand that their marriage be equated with yours whether you like it or not. You can call it degenerate all you want; as a devout atheist who believes gay folks have equal rights as you, I call your position "degenerate".

If you want to be free of perverts, move to Uganda.

1:01 pm March 27, 2013

to odumba wrote:

must suck to be so ignorant

1:02 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"....public acts in State A are enforceable in State B..."

Wrong. Marriage laws vary from state to state and states are not obligated to recognize those marriages that violate their laws. For example, first cousins can get married in some states, but not in others.

1:02 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"Marriage between a man and woman for the sake of procreation is an ideology. It’s absurd to mention procreation..."

Then you have to accept incestuous marriage.

1:02 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

Does anyone know whether the audio transcript from today's hearings will be released?
Yesterday's proceedings were really informative.

1:03 pm March 27, 2013

E.T. wrote:

Clearly the justices are not viewing gay people as a natural born minority as in ethnicity; they are looking at as a free will choice of life style, and not considering it as a civil rights case in the conventional sense of definding racial and ethnic minority rights. Until they prove a gene or gene set for homosexuality, homosexuality will continue to be viewed as a deviant choice; and clearly the SCOTUS is not willing to remotely consider these cases in even a filtered light that allows a comparrison to discriminatory miscegination law.

1:04 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"You do not get to live your life free from being around “perverts”."

Actually we do - ever hear of freedom of association.

" Gay folks are around you, whether you like it or not, and they demand that their marriage be equated with yours whether you like it or not"

And they can go pound sand, whether they like it or not.

1:06 pm March 27, 2013

ER wrote:

Felix wrote :
Marriage – heterosexual or same sex – is not protected by the Constitution.
Neither is it prohibited by the Constitution.
The court has no business in this matter.

But equal protection of ALL citizens under the constitution (14th Amendment) is a business of the court, so I don't think it's unnecessary for, or wrong of, the Supremes to step in.

1:08 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

"Barry has been derelict in his duty to defend laws the people through their representatives have passed."

Such presidential malfeasance has a long dishonorable history. Not many people remember, but there was this guy Ronald Reagan, president, and even though Congress had passed laws specifically and precisely designed to prevent any US funding for the Contras, that nasty, law-flouting man just went ahead and ignored the will of Congress ((PL) 97-377 for fiscal 1983 was amended (at section 793) . I am sure the person who quoted the comment above condemned Reagan for that illegality and malfeasance. Aren't we all just sure of that?

1:08 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"But equal protection of ALL citizens under the constitution (14th Amendment) is a business of the court..."

And under current marriage laws, both heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex, and neither can "marry" a member of the same sex.

There's no argument here.

1:09 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

"Then you have to accept incestuous marriage."

Notice how obsesses gay marriage opponents are by incest. Fascinating. And a tad creepy.

1:09 pm March 27, 2013

laura pol wrote:

At Odumba: "Then incestuous marriage must be permitted."

As I said before, I understand that 'marriage' is religious terminology, therefore we must respect it be kept that way, but homosexual unions should at least be recognized as a civil union, the same way a 'marriage' is. Incestuous marriage, would be an abomination under religion as well, but a homosexual relationship in no way shape or form has the same degenerating effect that an incestuous union would, scientifically wise. Homosexuals would be having children with abnormalities which would be the result of incest. So its so out of context for you to bring that up. Separation of church and state, get over it dude. If im not allowed to get married and have equal rights then i shouldn't have to pay taxes!!!!

1:10 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"Until they prove a gene or gene set for homosexuality,..."

You're right, but even more so the courts have consistently upheld that gender is a rational basis for discrimination.

1:11 pm March 27, 2013

correction wrote:

homosexuals would NOT* be having children with abnormalities.

and if ur gonna bring up the "how are homosexuals gonna have kids?" with a bit of research im sure you can find the numerous ways

1:11 pm March 27, 2013

Jason D. Clinton wrote:

We don't want special protection; we want equal protection.

1:12 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

@Xenophon, one of the last famous persons who talked like you was Adolf Hitler, who believe that the Jews were perverted and who then rounded them up to live in separate communities, called "Ghettos". Of course, he didn't stop there as he then later sent them off to concentration camps, to die. Because you believe that my inherent being and essence is perverted and should not be "subsidized" by the federal government, understand that I, too, consider your inherent hateful being and essence also perverted. Tell me why that I, as a ultra-high income earner (who pays federal income taxes in the range of $100,000 - $200,000 each year for the past ten years) then should not be able to direct the federal government from using my tax monies to subsidize, for example, your religion that has been hell bent in instructing you to hate someone like me. If you think I should live a separate life, then I guess all of my federal income tax dollars should also be devoted solely to support the separate community that you would send me to.

1:13 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

"And they can go pound sand, whether they like it or not."

and you should go jump off a bridge

1:14 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

"You’re right, but even more so the courts have consistently upheld that gender is a rational basis for discrimination."

because unfortunately people like you exist. Maybe stupidity should be illegal.... that would suck for you

1:15 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

Wait. Just wait. The person with the juvenile, intended-to-be-insulting-to-the-president screen ID will bring up incest again. And again. You can check the posting made in the Prop 8 case yesterday. Incest, incest, incest. It is the poster's go-to.

1:15 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"homosexuals would NOT* be having children with abnormalities."

Homosexual couples can't have children, period, but the argument is that marriage and procreation are de-coupled, which means that incestuous marriage must be permitted.

1:16 pm March 27, 2013

M. Peters (@MPetersDesires) wrote:

On the issue of "if a sitting President doesn't think a law is constitutional, then he shouldn't enforce it", what options does that President have for NOT enforcing it? Can he just say, "I don't agree with this, here's why, and it's going up in smoke now"? Seems to me that with the checks and balances in place, he CAN'T do that - and if he TRIED, Congress would scream the White House down. So... what's his option?

1:16 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"...homosexual unions should at least be recognized as a civil union..."

And few people would have a problem with that. The issue is that homosexuals insist on appropriating the word "marriage" and applying it to their relationship.

1:18 pm March 27, 2013

For Odumba wrote:

lol, its funny that you must keep bringing that back up "but the argument is that marriage and procreation are de-coupled, which means that incestuous marriage must be permitted." cuz you have nothing else to say. You are the only stuck stick on that argument. the differences between a gay marriage and a incestuous marriage are extremely obvious if you have enough gray matter.

1:19 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"... intended-to-be-insulting-to-the-president screen ID ..."

And you just can't stand it, can you?

Deal.

1:20 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

It took less than a minute! And back the one with the juvenile screen ID came back to incest. (Check out 1:15.)

1:22 pm March 27, 2013

Joe wrote:

preventing gays from being married does in fact inflict harm. We are required to pay taxes yet are not afforded the same benefits that married heterosexual couples do. So in essence, you want my tax dollars to benefit you and your kids (that you chose to have BTW) but aren't willing to extend marriage benefits to me? Good luck defending that without sounding like a bigoted hypocrite.

1:23 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"...you must keep bringing that back up “but the argument is that marriage and procreation are de-coupled, which means that incestuous marriage must be permitted.” .."

Of course I'll keep bringing it up - it cannot be refuted.

Deal

1:24 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"...We are required to pay taxes yet are not afforded the same benefits that married heterosexual couples do...."

Then find a woman and marry her.

1:25 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

LOL, John, you nailed Odumba, but I ask that you take pity on "it" for it's obvious that "it" is sensitive to issues concerning incest, probably for personal reasons that we don't want to explore.

1:25 pm March 27, 2013

T3D wrote:

Looks like the only decision to be rendered by the nine Supreme Court judges will be to avoid the responsibilities of their positions as fully as the 'illustrious' members of the Senate and House have avoided carrying out theirs. If the SCOTUS chooses to ignore the 14th Amendent that guarantees EVERYONE equal rights and protections under the law, they have proven themselves spineless and should be replaced. For those who want to impose exceptions, please point out to me where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights where ANY exception is provided. You can't. No exceptions means exactly that: No Exceptions.

1:25 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

And you just can’t stand it, can you?
Deal.

keep hating, people are gonna keep on being gay, eventually you are gonna be surrounded by them, and the one that's gonna have to deal with this 'abomination' is you. Sooner or later, we are gonna be recognized by the government, is not an issues that is gonna go away ever. Same way segregation ended, this will end.

1:26 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

"And you just can’t stand it, can you? Deal."

A child screaming and screaming and screaming is annoying. Your screen name is your childish scream. I keep hoping that your discourse will rise above the twin obsessions of incest/and diminishment of BHO, but my hope appears to be in vain.

So the childish nom de guerre will continue, as will your fascination with incest. You spoke earlier of people you thought sad and pathetic. Those two ideas now leap to my mind as well.

1:27 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"...the differences between a gay marriage and a incestuous marriage are extremely obvious..."

OK - make your argument?

1:27 pm March 27, 2013

Mary Q wrote:

To Odumda, who was dumb enought to write as a solution: "Then find a woman and marry her." I did.

1:30 pm March 27, 2013

laura pol wrote:

Of course I’ll keep bringing it up – it cannot be refuted

lol of course it can be refuted. Separation of church and state. Marriage is a term that came upon religion, not government. Civil union is the answer. We are not asking to be accepted by the church. And if you want to bring incest back up......... No one is asking for incestuous civil union. Because I think we are all smart enough to know the repercussions that would have on genetics, and no one wants to go down that route, gay, straight, or even people who commit incest. Now if you wanna keep or being ignorant, and repeating 'incest & deal" go for it. Your comments stopped being valid the 2nd time you brought up the same crap.

1:30 pm March 27, 2013

Xevioso wrote:

I have no problem with people like Odubma bringing up incest marriages. Incest marriage is actually very traditional; there are historical examples of it going back through antiquity.

REALITY is that incest marriages have occurred throughout history. We don't allow them because of the genetic defects on the children they produce. But I won't dodge your silly argument Odumba...I will face it head on. The facts are...the FACTS are...

Marriages between brothers and Sisters is MORE traditional than gay marriage. That is a FACT. In fact, the Christian church BLESSED some incest-based marriages in Europe throughout the middle ages. Now go and smoke a pipe on that for a while.

1:30 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

Apologies to all. I have devoted too much of this space to a poster with issues. I will step away from the discussion now.

I hope for an outcome in both the Prop 8 case and the DOMA case that will prove helpful to the LGBT community, which will, I believe, ultimately prove helpful to America.

Cheers!

1:31 pm March 27, 2013

gremlin wrote:

"denying spousal benefits to same-sex couples across the board" is exactly what sets up the situation wherein "a soldier . . . resist(s) a transfer from West Point, N.Y., to Fort Sill, Okla., because they fear a loss of federal benefits when they relocate from a state that authorizes gay marriage to one that doesn't." You have it exactly backwards, Mr. Clement.

Gay unions will not be affecting anyone, only the pride of close minded people as yourself. Yes we have a million way of having healthy kids and so we can continue to procreate, which you seem to be so concerned about. We all know incest causes birth defects and obviously it would dent evolution. As for gay unions wouldn't. We still have the option of healthily procreating even if it cant be with each other.

1:34 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"Civil union is the answer. "

Fair enough - then I win the argument.

1:35 pm March 27, 2013

purdueenginerd wrote:

To those bringing up incest as an argument against gay marriage. The argument is an informal fallacy.

To say, we should ban homosexuals from marrying because "incest", is also an argument against heterosexual marriage. No one is advocating incestual marriage.

1:35 pm March 27, 2013

MYSTERY MAN wrote:

GAYS AND LESBIANS:

Get AIDS and DIE ! " For the wages of SIN is DEATH". Nobody is "born" that way, its just another lifestyle choice. Bad choice to be sure. No doubt Liberal Catholics like Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and is fellow judges will want to grant California Fags the legal right to be legally married. It just shows that the will of the voters through state initiatives at the ballot box is pretty much null and void if it is not popular with the radicals, secularists, and leftists.

1:36 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"I have no problem with people like Odubma bringing up incest marriages. Incest marriage is actually very traditional; there are historical examples of it going back through antiquity.

REALITY is that incest marriages have occurred throughout history. "

Well stated. The fact is, there is much stronger historical and cultural precedent for incestuous marriage than for homosexual "marriage".

Now - why should we create homosexual "marriage" and not incestuous marriage?

its sad and pathetic that you feel that way about someone who is made up of the same that you are. oh but im sorry, im sure you are heterosexual, or never mind, probably asexual because im sure no one in their right mind would wed someone of your character. And so you know I am a straight female. no problems with homosexuals whatsoever.

1:39 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"Gay unions will not be affecting anyone..."

I disagree, but so what?

"Yes we have a million way of having healthy kids and so we can continue to procreate"

LOL

Homosexual couples cannot procreate - this is the most basic of biological facts.

"We all know incest causes birth defects and obviously it would dent evolution."

But homosexuals argue marriage and procreation are decoupled. An incestuous couple doesn't have to be married to procreate.

1:40 pm March 27, 2013

Deployed wrote:

As a gay military member, Mr. Clement's argument for military readiness is faulty. As a Washington State resident who resides in California, if I were to marry my partner in either state, a new duty assignment would not affect us as much as if we were not married. The benefit entitlements extended to spouses for a military move would actually greatly ease the transition. As it stands, we would have to pay out of pocket for my partner's move to a new duty location. Additionally, we would not earn the married rate of Basic Allowance for Housing or be authorized base housing, which is more money out of our pockets. Furthermore, my partner could not utilize job placement programs or be covered under my healthcare during the transition, again adding to the difficulty of the move.

I personnally would not expect a state I am stationed in to recognize the marriage if they have not approved same sex marriages. I DO expect my employer, the Federal Government, to extend the same benefits to us that are provided to other married couples since my home of record and state of residence DOES recognize our marriage.

1:49 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

@ Odumba, not sure where anyone call you any name other than the name that you gave yourself.

Also, why are you not also stating that recognition of hetero marriage MUST mean recognition of incest marriage. The same logic applies. Read, please.

Gay marriage is the right of two consenting adults who are same sex oriented, to be married and recognized as a partnership for all obligations and benefits imposed or granted under the law. The individuals may have changed their sex since birth. Gay married couples may or may not have children. One or both may be infertile. Children may be adopted or obtain by in vitro fertilzation. One may have had children by having sex outside of the marriage, and the other married partner may choose to adopt that child.

Hetero marriage is exactly the same thing, except that the adults are not same sexed. Again, the individuals may have changed their sex since birth. Hetero married couples may or may not have children. One or ore may be infertile. They may have children by adoption or by in vitro fertilzation. One may have had children by having sex outside of the marriage, and the other married partner may choose to adopt that child.

Incest marriage would be restricted to the marriage of two consenting adults who are related to each other by 1 or 2 degrees.

There is no logic to your statement that recognition of gay marriage MUST mean recognition of incest marriage in that the same could be applied to the recognition of hetero marriage. Very different concepts. I don't see how acceptance of one means you must accept the other.

1:51 pm March 27, 2013

DocTony wrote:

purdueenginerd wrote :

To those bringing up incest as an argument against gay marriage. The argument is an informal fallacy. To say, we should ban homosexuals from marrying because “incest”, is also an argument against heterosexual marriage. No one is advocating incestual marriage.

Actually, it's not an "informal" fallacy at all. Making the "incest argument" actually commits TWO formal fallacies--it's both a red herring (introducing something irrelevant to divert attention from the merits of the argument at hand), and a slippery slope (if we do one thing, it will lead to a series of disastrous effects--incest marriages, polygamy, human/animal marriages. . . )

1:53 pm March 27, 2013

Xevioso wrote:

Odumba: Because no one is advocating it before the court. Who has standing to bring forward a challenge to laws outlawing incest-based marriages? Only brothers and sisters. Are there any who want to get married?

As far as I am aware, there are no couples who have challenged the right of siblings to marry.

So Odumba, if you would like to push for that law, ask your sister to marry you, and then you will have standing in court. Until that time, Gays and Lesbians who want to marry DO HAVE STANDING because they cannot marry and want to.

":Now – why should we create homosexual “marriage” and not incestuous marriage?"

Because no one has brought forward a court case challenging laws against incestuous marriages. If you wish to push for incestuous marriages, by all means do so. But it is ridiculous of you to accuse gays and lesbians of not fighting for incest-based marriages. That is not their fight; their fight is to get their own marriages validated.

If you want to take up that civil rights issue, by all means, go for it. And the rest of us will laugh at you.

1:55 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"Gay marriage is the right of two consenting adults..."

Why only TWO?

1:57 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"No one is advocating incestual marriage."

Actually, some are.

I'll make it simple for those of you who can't follow - homosexuals argue that marriage and procreation have been decoupled. If this were true, then incestuous marriage would have to be permitted because the argument against it is defective procreation.

Simple.

1:59 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"Odumba: Because no one is advocating it before the court."

It's been advocated before, as was polygamy. Do you know polygamy was legal in the US until the mid 1800's. Until the 20th century in some places. The same precedent that upheld laws against polygamy also doom the cause of those who seek homosexual "marriage".

2:01 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

@Odumba, you couldn't refute the logic that showed that your statement that acceptance of gay marriage MUST mean we must accept incestuous marriage is a total fallacy, so now you divert to the NUMBER of people getting married. LOL.

AGAIN - "Gay marriage is the right of two consenting adults..." ALSO "Hetero marriage is the right of two consenting adults...." SO AGAIN, why does the acceptance of gay marriage mean that we MUST accept polygamy ANY MORE COMPELLING than our acceptance of hetero marriage?

Again, you lose on logic.

2:04 pm March 27, 2013

lorenzo ruiz wrote:

thank you very much for your excellent coverage and reporting. we are greatful

2:05 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

@Odumba, "marriage" had been redefined for thousands of years. You yourself have pointed that out. So why do you care and why are you objecting to any redefinition of marriage NOW?

2:13 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"...the logic that showed that your statement that acceptance of gay marriage MUST mean we must accept incestuous marriage is a total fallacy..."

I must have missed that argument - what was it?

2:14 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"“marriage” had been redefined for thousands of years."

Wrong. Always between men and women, with two variants - polygamous and monogamous.

2:17 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"...now you divert to the NUMBER of people getting married..."

It's a refutation of another fallacious assertion - that marriage is the union of two people. Sorry if I don't concentrate on only you.

2:21 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"Because no one has brought forward a court case challenging laws against incestuous marriages"

Yes, they have. Polygamists have, too. Both lost, as the homosexuals will.

2:22 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

@ Odumba, see my post at 1:49 pm. There is no more reason to believe that acceptance of marriage between two same sexed people compells acceptance of incestuous marriage more than the acceptance of hetero marriage.

In same sex and opposite sex marriage, either party may have changed their sex during the course of their lives or may change their sex AFTER marriage. Also, either couple may be incapable of having children biologically together, and either couple are capable of living a married life without children or with children that were either adopted or conceived by in vitro fertilzation. Given all these commonalities, there is no more compelling mandate that you must accept incestuous marriage simply because you've accepted same sexed marriage or if you accept opposite sexed marriage.
All this proves is that you are introducing a red herring into the discussion.

2:25 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

I read it - here is an error: "... Gay married couples may or may not have children...."

Gay couples cannot have children.

2:26 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

First posting from the incest-obsessed one: 11:34: "Then incestuous marriage must be permitted."

1:57: "If this were true, then incestuous marriage would have to be permitted because the argument against it is defective procreation."

Still at it 2 and one half hours later.

It is lovely in my neighborhood. It was fun to go out for a walk and pay attention to something other than those concerned about incest and this type of adolescent declaration: : I win the argument."

It may be fun to tangle with the obsessed. I suggest that if this discussion continues., the interaction be kept to those who do not need to win, but instead joyously share and learn and enjoy.

Ciao again!

2:27 pm March 27, 2013

Xevioso wrote:

@Odumba

I have no problem with polygamy. I have no problem with marriage between siblings.

But you do. You are trying to shame those of us who support gay marriage with a stupid slippery slope argument.

If you want polygamous marriage, then try to get married to two women and then take it to court.

If you want to marry your sister, try to do so and take it to court.

Until then, you don't have standing.

You have no case.

You have no argument except hot air.

You have no basis to deny gay folks the right to marry based on the inability of other groups to marry.

Those groups must take it to court themselves because only they have STANDING. What is it about this simple concept that you do not understand?

The fact that polygamy was outlawed in the 1800's is no basis for not bringing a polygamy case again to court; slavery was allowed and we struck it down. The fact is, polygamy IS traditional, so there's no good reason for it to be outlawed.

2:28 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

GROANING @Odumba, "Wrong. Always between men and women, with two variants – polygamous and monogamous."

WRONG - there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome, in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history. These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.

Do you want me to go on? Let's talk about how marriage was once a life-long partnership. How marriage once could only be between people of the same faith. Between people of the same race.

Should I go on?

How marriage could be between an adult and a child.

Should I go on?

2:29 pm March 27, 2013

Bill wrote:

According to Odessa, Chief Justice John Roberts has no children because they were adopted. You seem quite fascinated by incest. Is your sister THAT hot? :)

2:29 pm March 27, 2013

Xevioso wrote:

"“Because no one has brought forward a court case challenging laws against incestuous marriages”

Yes, they have"

[citation needed]

2:30 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

"Gay couples cannot have children."

That is incorrect. If you mean that male couples cannot reproduce between themselves, then say that. But gay couples do have children. Justice Kennedy pointed out 40,000 such children yesterday. And, in fact, many male couples do have children that are genetically related to one of the partners. Much as step-children are raised in a household with one biological parent, and one legal parent.

I know you wish to be correct in your assertions, and you are quick to correct others.

2:30 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"...there is no more compelling mandate that you must accept incestuous marriage simply because you’ve accepted same sexed marriage or if you accept opposite sexed marriage...."

You're wandering - is marriage decoupled from procreation or not? If it is, the incestuous marriage must be permitted. If not, then homosexual marriage cannot be.

Simple.

2:31 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"WRONG – there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world."

LOL

2:33 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"You are trying to shame those of us who support gay marriage with a stupid slippery slope argument."

No, I'm trying to walk you through the logical consequences so you can see what doors you are opening. If you consider these consequences to be unacceptable, you should question the premises from which you begin.

2:33 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

@Xevioso - Google it.

2:37 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

@ Odumba - you wrote that you finally read my argument and you write: "I read it – here is an error: “… Gay married couples may or may not have children….” Gay couples cannot have children."

WRONG - Gay couples can have children and in the some of the same ways that hetero couples do. Adoption and in vitro fertilzation.

Again, there is no reason that if you accept same sex marriage that you thus must accept incestuous marriage any more than if you accept opposite sex marriage.

What do you want to do? Reclassify ALL marriages that are between adults who are infertile or who chose to adopt children or chose to have their children by in vitro fertilzation? Why not - let's have separate classess of marriage based upon the method of having children added to that family. Of course, let's also have a class for all marriages where the couples choose or are incapable of having children.

2:42 pm March 27, 2013

Herb Spencer wrote:

I'd much rather see Marie Windsor in this case than Edith.

2:42 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"WRONG – Gay couples can have children"

Two individuals of the same gender cannot procreate.

2:43 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

LOL now @ Odumba, who stated lectured: "No, I’m trying to walk you through the logical consequences so you can see what doors you are opening."

And yet when Odumba (who, by the way chides us all about being nasty and doing name-calling and yet is self-identified by name calling our President) is confront with FACTS that shows the error of his premises, he can only write... "LOL" (see post at 2:31pm).

You'll get over it, Odumba. In fact, when DOMA is overturned and gay marriage is accepted by a majority of US citizens (oh wait, that's already the case), you will finally feel some relief that you no long have to expend your energies hating your fellow American citizens and trying to deny them the same civil rights enjoyed by other.

2:45 pm March 27, 2013

Xevioso wrote:

@Odumba, you made the assertion. Find a case of siblings in the US trying to bring a case before a US court allowing them to marry. Otherwise, Hush.

You say "No, I’m trying to walk you through the logical consequences so you can see what doors you are opening. If you consider these consequences to be unacceptable, you should question the premises from which you begin."

I don't have a problem with the consequences. But you do. You are engaging in disingenuous arguments. You aren't actually arguing incest or polygamy...you are trying to point out logical inconsistencies with those of us who feel uncomfortable with wone and not the other.

But I don't. I have no problem with it.

Your argument fails. You have nothing to stand on. Your argument is "If gays can marry, why not brothers and sisters?" to which I say

OK!!! Fine with me!

And your only response to that is...

Silence.

2:51 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

@ Odumba, still waiting to hear from you:

Again, Gay couples can have children in their family and they do it in the some of the same ways and methods that are done by by opposite sexed couples: Adoption and in vitro fertilzation.

Again, there is no reason that if you accept same sex marriage that you thus must accept incestuous marriage any more than if you accept opposite sex marriage you must accept incestuous marriage.

Let's follow YOUR logic about fearing the consequences of what might happen if we "open doors by allowing gay marriage." Seriously, then where did the slippery slope start that leads to incestuous marriage rights? WHEN WE ALLOWED OPPOSITE SEXED COUPLES WHO NEVER INTENDED TO HAVE CHILDREN or WHO WERE INCAPABLE OF HAVING CHILDREN, to marry. RIGHT, Odumba?

So are you going to reclassify ALL marriages that are between adults who are infertile or who chose to adopt children or chose to have their children by in vitro fertilzation? Why not – let’s have separate classess of marriage based upon the method of having children added to that family. Of course, let’s also have a class for all marriages where the couples choose or are incapable of having children.

2:52 pm March 27, 2013

Xevioso wrote:

@Odumba I will try again, since you have ignored my argument over and over, thus showing you have no case:

You have no basis to deny gay folks the right to marry based on the inability of other groups to marry.

Those groups must take it to court themselves because only they have STANDING. What is it about this simple concept that you do not understand?

2:54 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"@Odumba, you made the assertion. Find a case of siblings in the US trying to bring a case before a US court allowing them to marry. "

I stated a fact. If you are unaware of that fact, this does not affect the truth of that fact. As I said, google it. You'll learn some research skills and be better informed.

2:55 pm March 27, 2013

Xevioso wrote:

@Odumba says
"You’re wandering – is marriage decoupled from procreation or not? If it is, the incestuous marriage must be permitted. If not, then homosexual marriage cannot be.

Simple."

I agree. It is decoupled. Incestuous marriage must be permitted. Now go find a pair of siblings who want to get married. Good luck.

2:56 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"You have no basis to deny gay folks the right to marry based on the inability of other groups to marry."

That's not my argument - I'm pointing out the fallacy of the 'same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because opposite sex couples are allowed to marry' argument.

2:56 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

" Gay couples can have children in their family"

No, they can't. If you are ignorant of this most basic fact of biology there is probably little hope for you.

2:57 pm March 27, 2013

JenNV wrote:

Chengster- to answer your question regarding if people (hetersexuals) can marry soley for benifits without procreation, the answer is yes. I am aware of many persons who have done this, especially those in the military.

The argument against the support of gay marraige- I am a 29 year old woman in a loving beautiful relationship with another woman for well over 8 yrs. We are fortunate that our state has allowed civil unions, but civil union is just a piece of paper we are union. It does not allow us the benifits that of a married hetersexual couple. Personal reference alone I am daughter to bilogical mother and father married for 30yrs and military service family. I share the same values and morals as any other : family values, my partner and i acting reliegious cathlics, live life rightousley.
Forget the procreation arguments- there are thousands upon thousands and children that still need homes familys, my partner and I plan to adopt and foster children. There are plenty of procreations being inacted wether married or not, that are occuring today, that why would allowing my partner and I to marry (constitutionally) be wrong. We have supporters from our church, national church to accept our love. We share the same values as any married hetersexual couple in way in definition of love, family, why deny benifits of that. Only one of us can adopt a child, be classified as the parent. what if something happens to the other? think of all the things we are denied cause we would not be recognized federally, how much harder it is. I truly believe right to marry anyone we *LOVE* is just as important and should be recognized as much as it was for interacial couples to marry!
I have faith and hope that this will make history! I truly believe the Justice's will be in favor of allowing gay marraige. Look throughout history and how everthing has changed. Remember those gay couples (thank you to DADT being lifted) who sacrfice thier lives, careers because of thier orientation what they can and cannot do cause the federal government does not recognize thier marraige (what about the kids) (the ability to advance in military career but may be hindered because they are unable to or wont go overseas to be stationed because they would have to leave thier family behind.....etc).

For those who support gay marraige, whether gay or straight, thank you for your support. For those who dont, Your opinion does matter and I value them, I just ask, if it doesnt directly affect you, to respect whatever the outcome may be. I to this day , respect everyone and anything that i may disagree with (ie: I I am against abbortion) but I will not make your life miserable or harder because you have a different opinion, whether religious, moral, personal view. Its your freedom of choice!!

2:57 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

Odumba is "odumb-strucked". He can't refute my arguments nor yours, Xevioso, with any reason or logic. IIt appears that he has left the building.

Even Bill O'Reilly gave up and conceded last night on Fox "News" Channel that there really is no compelling argument to oppose gay marriage rights.

2:58 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"Those groups must take it to court themselves because only they have STANDING."

And as I pointed out, advocates of polygamy and incestuous marriage have tried this already and lost, as the homosexuals will. The same precedents doom them.

2:59 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"I have faith and hope that this will make history! I truly believe the Justice’s will be in favor of allowing gay marraige."

You will be disappointed. The USSC is not going to declare homosexual "marriage" the law of the land.

3:00 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

"Two individuals of the same gender cannot procreate."

And yet, they can still have children. And more, they do have children. Hundreds and thousands of children. And your assertion, and I am quoting you exactly: " @2:25: "Gay couples cannot have children."

3:01 pm March 27, 2013

Xevioso wrote:

Odumba, you have stated "
And as I pointed out, advocates of polygamy and incestuous marriage have tried this already and lost, as the homosexuals will. The same precedents doom them."

I have asked you to provide a case of siblings who wanted to get married taking their case before the courts, and you have not done do.

You are lying. Making it up. Pulling it out of the air.

More importantly, there is nothing that stops a pair of siblings from doing it again, even if there was a precedent before that. You realize that slavery had precedents in law before it was struck down, right? You do realize that, right?

You have no case. Your arguments are empty, vapid, and shallow. Your side is losing the culture wars...face it...

Gays WILL BE ABLE TO MARRY EACH OTHER. And there's not a thing you can do about it.

3:02 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

@ Odumba, you are failing and now falling to that base level of just taking selective statements and attacking those, as you did here: ["Gay couples can have children in their family” - No, they can’t. If you are ignorant of this most basic fact of biology there is probably little hope for you."]

You FAIL. I wrote: "Gay couples can have children in their family and they do it in the some of the same ways and methods that are done by by opposite sexed couples: Adoption and in vitro fertilzation."

Do you DENY this? If so, you are denying that hundreds of thousands of children today are not children in some family?

Or do you just really want to say that homosexuals are not capable of, nor deserving to have, a loving family. GET IT OUT, Odumba, so we can see your true hateful self.

3:03 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

"The same precedents doom them."

Doom in the sense that gay marriage is alive and well in 9 states in America? Doom in the sense that the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, and Denmark have gay marriage? And so on, and so on.

I think many in the LGBT community will accept that doom, and look forward to that doom spreading.

3:06 pm March 27, 2013

Xevioso wrote:

@Odumba

"“You have no basis to deny gay folks the right to marry based on the inability of other groups to marry.”

That’s not my argument – I’m pointing out the fallacy of the ‘same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because opposite sex couples are allowed to marry’ argument."

Baloney. Your entire argument here has been that if people think gays should be allowed to marry, then they logically should think other groups, like siblings, should be allowed to marry, to which I say, YES that is accurate. You are trying to exchange one fallacy for another, and I'm not having it; your arguments on this board have continually been about shaming gay-rights supporters into sheepishly admitting that they might also have to support incest-marriages.

Stop trying to hoodwink people and try to stay consistent. You have no legs to stand on.

3:12 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"I have asked you to provide a case of siblings who wanted to get married taking their case before the courts, and you have not done do.

You are lying. Making it up. Pulling it out of the air."

I am not. Google it and you will find it, or remain ignorant. Your decision!

3:13 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

@ Odumba You quoted me when I wrote : .“…there is no more compelling mandate that you must accept incestuous marriage simply because you’ve accepted same sexed marriage or if you accept opposite sexed marriage….” and then YOU wrote, "You’re wandering – is marriage decoupled from procreation or not? If it is, the incestuous marriage must be permitted. If not, then homosexual marriage cannot be. Simple."

Not so simple. You FAIL to acknowledge that hetero sexual marriage has always been decoupled from procreation for CENTURIES because of the FACT that there have always been married opposite sexed couples who could not, or who choose not to have children.

So if that is the case, then the arguments for or against incestuous marriage started LONG LONG LONG before the question of same sexced marriage arose.

3:13 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"Your entire argument here has been that if people think gays should be allowed to marry, then they logically should think other groups, like siblings, should be allowed to marry, to which I say, YES that is accurate."

Then you are being logically consistent. I'll let you mull over these consequences for yourself.

3:14 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

It looks like the homosexuals are going to be very disappointed - the USSC is not going to declare homosexual "marriage" the law of the land.

Can't win at the ballot box, can't win in the courts - what are they going to do?

3:19 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"Two individuals of the same gender cannot procreate.”

And yet, they can still have children"

Not with each other, they can't.

3:20 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"Gays WILL BE ABLE TO MARRY EACH OTHER."

We'll see!

3:21 pm March 27, 2013

Xevioso wrote:

"Then you are being logically consistent. I’ll let you mull over these consequences for yourself."

I have no problem with the consequences. You have lost your argument. I will let you mull over the consequences of that to yourself.

3:21 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"You FAIL to acknowledge that hetero sexual marriage has always been decoupled from procreation"

I'm not arguing one way or another - I'm pointing out that if marriage is decoupled from procreation, then incestuous marriage must be permitted. If marriage is not decoupled from procreation, then homosexual "marriage" can not be.

3:22 pm March 27, 2013

Xevioso wrote:

"“I have asked you to provide a case of siblings who wanted to get married taking their case before the courts, and you have not done do.

You are lying. Making it up. Pulling it out of the air.”

I am not. Google it and you will find it, or remain ignorant. Your decision!
"

[citation needed]

3:23 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

@Odumba, WRONG!

IF DOMA is struck down and my state has approved gay marriage, then how, as a homosexual, am I disappoined? I AM ESTATIC. I won both at the ballot box and in the courts. The only thing left to do is ignore the odumb people who continue to remain stuck and suffocating in their bigotry.

3:26 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

I"’m pointing out that if marriage is decoupled from procreation, then incestuous marriage must be permitted. If marriage is not decoupled from procreation, then homosexual “marriage” can not be."

This statement makes ABSOLUTELY no sense in the world today. Marriage and procreation are not dependant on either. People can procreate without marriage, and there has always been marriage without procreation. Your logic is non-existent. How does THIS issue about incest have anything to do with Gay marriage?

3:30 pm March 27, 2013

Xevioso wrote:

@Odumba

"I’m not arguing one way or another – I’m pointing out that if marriage is decoupled from procreation, then incestuous marriage must be permitted. If marriage is not decoupled from procreation, then homosexual “marriage” can not be."

Yes, OK, we get it. So incestuous marriage must be permitted. OK. I agree.

So then you have no problems with gay folks getting married, since you think siblings should logically also be allowed to get married.

Whew, glad you cleared that up! Why are you on here again?

3:31 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

@ Odumba, who wrote: "“Gays WILL BE ABLE TO MARRY EACH OTHER.” - We’ll see".

HUH??? WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN - Gay already can marry each other.

3:32 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

"Can’t win at the ballot box, can’t win in the courts – what are they going to do?"

I have figured out another of this poster's problem. This poster does not read the newspapers, and apparently missed thst pro gay-marriage amendments passed in four states in November, 2012. (Washington, Minnesota, Maryland, and Maine.) In other words, that poster's statement of fact is a misstatement of fact.

If this poster did read, this poster would know that gay marriage has succeeded at the ballot box.

And in response to someone posting, "GAYS WILL BE ABLE to marry."

Our poster replied: "We'll see."

Actually, even in this country, we have been seeing since 2004. It is possible that this poster refuses to see what already exists, but I would not speculate further.

3:38 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

John, some people find happiness and contentment under a big rock.

3:40 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"This statement makes ABSOLUTELY no sense in the world today. Marriage and procreation are not dependant on either"

Then you support incestuous marriage. Good.

3:41 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"Actually, even in this country, we have been seeing since 2004. "

And the states have decided this issue for themselves - they don't want homosexual "marriage". 30 states have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Game over, which is why the homosexuals have turned to the courts.

3:44 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

Anonymous, you may be right. Or else that particular poster is sending posts from 1959.

The "We'll" see comment really did give me pause. Gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts in 2004. Nine years ago!

"We'll see."

And those mobile phones about which I have heard so much may actually get smaller than briefcases. We'll see.

3:49 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

"Game over, which is why the homosexuals have turned to the courts."

Maine? Maryland? Minnesota? Washington? Ballot box? Election results?

I have refrained from asserting this, but you are denying reality, whether it is only to those posting or to yourself as well. If it is the former, it is fun for you. But if it is the latter, it is actually worrisome.

An honest and accurate statement is that when gay marriage has been put before American votes, it has often been rejected, but in 2012, four pro-gay marriage ballot initiatives passed. But to assert that is has not succeeded at the ballot box is demonstrably false. And no matter how many times you assert it, it will remain false.

3:51 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

Odumba again quotes me when I stated that his statements makes ABSOLUTELY no sense in the world today, and that because I said that marriage and procreation are not dependant on either, that I support incestuous marriage. -

How Odumba leaps to that conclusion reveals a serious delinkage in his frontal lobes, and I am sensing that we are dealing with a poster who may be on some anti-psychotic medication.

AGAIN, Odumba, I don't know how many times this must be repeated, but YOU are the one who has been attempting to link the acceptance of incestuous marriage to the acceptance of same-sexed marriage. And I have REPEATEDLY advised you that there is no rationale basis or linkage to this statement. IN FACT, I have REPEATED told you that the same factors on which YOU would choose to rely on to accept incestuous marriage lie within a same sexed marriage ACTUALLY ALSO exist in an opposite sex marriage. SO IF THAT WERE TRUE, the slipperly slope started with same sex marriages that do not bear biological children. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACCEPTANCE OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE. THAT IS WHAT I SUPPORT!

3:53 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

John, as I stated in my post, Odumba is denying reality but now I do have serious reasons to believe that he may be incapable of seeing or accepting reality and we should just accept his position in life.

3:55 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

correction to my post at 3:51.

I wrote: "SO IF THAT WERE TRUE, the slipperly slope started with same sex marriages that do not bear biological children." when I intended to write "SO IF THAT WERE TRUE, the slippery slope started with opposite sex marriages that do not bear biological children."

3:59 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"because I said that marriage and procreation are not dependant on either, that I support incestuous marriage. –"

I've explained it many times, but I'll explain it again - if marriage and procreation are decoupled, the defective procreation argument against incestuous marriage disappears. If marriage and procreation are not decoupled, then homosexuals cannot marry since they cannot procreate.

4:00 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"...denying reality..."

LOL

The ones denying reality are the homosexuals who argue that same-sex couples can get married, ignoring all evidence of biology, culture, and morality.

4:01 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

When the voters in 30 states constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman, it was also at a time when the polls shows that only 30 % of people favored gay marriage. Now there are over 51% of people who favor gay marriage.

As the state voters learn how they were hoodwinked by bigot groups like the "American Family Association" with their lies and deception, there will be new ballot initiatives to overturn those bigoted constitutional amendments. I know in several states, pro-marriage equality groups are gearing up to correct this travesty.

4:01 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"...YOU are the one who has been attempting to link the acceptance of incestuous marriage to the acceptance of same-sexed marriage...."

Again, I am pointing out the logical conclusions of your arguments. This is how reasoned analysis proceeds.

4:06 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

" I know in several states, pro-marriage equality groups are gearing up to correct this travesty."

Good luck with that!

This issue has been decided, for the most part. Game over.

4:06 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

"The ones denying reality are the homosexuals..."

And you deny reality. Gay marriage has existed in this country since 2004. Is that true or false?

In 2012 four pro-gay marriage ballot initiatives were passed in four states (MN, MD, ME, and WA). True or false?

It is one thing, and a valid thing, to present arguments for or against a position, but it is not valid to make erroneous statements, and then to either deny having made them, or to pretend you didn't make them.

4:13 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

And I add this statistic to those who assert "Game over":

15% - The approximate percentage of Americans who live in states where same-sex marriage is legal.

That is the number as of today. If the SC denies standing in the Prop 8 Case, that percentage will approach 25%.

Percentage of US population living in states with gay marriage in 2003? 0%?

Some may see it as "Game Over"; I see a change from 0% to 15% in ten years as quite remarkable. And if in July, the SC denies standing in the Prop 8 case, that number will leap to 25%. At the very least I would say the Game is still in play, and it seems to be heading in the direction of gay marriage.

4:14 pm March 27, 2013

Anonymous wrote:

Odumba started to FAIL when he started to take peoples statements out of context and distort their meanings, right about the time when he realize he was not prevailing on his supposed logic arguments. Then he started to ignore facts or when we highlighted his erroneous statements.

He is living in a fantasy world. You can't reason with someone like him just like you can't reason with someone who is bi polar and off their meds, or who is an alcoholic and intoxicated.

4:17 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"n 2012 four pro-gay marriage ballot initiatives were passed in four states (MN, MD, ME, and WA). True or false?"

Wow, I'm impressed - so what is the record now, 4-35?

You can't even win in a wacky state like CA, which is why you're in the courts.

4:23 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

Statement: "Can’t win at the ballot box, can’t win in the courts – what are they going to do?"

New version of statement: "Wow, I’m impressed – so what is the record now, 4-35?"

15% of Americans live in states with gay marriage. That number will rise to 25% if the SC steps away from the Prop 8 case.

Feel free to refute that statement.

Gay marriage exists in America. It has existed in America since 2004.

Feel free to refute that statement.

4:23 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

Insults - the last resort of those who are losing the argument.

4:25 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

"Insults – the last resort of those who are losing the argument."

Who wrote this at 1:31? "Sad, pathetic creatures."

Yes, I see your point.

4:27 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

I repeat: 30 states have constitutional amendments which define marriage as between one man and one woman. Game over, which is why you are in the courts.

4:28 pm March 27, 2013

ntertainer333 wrote:

@Xenophon "Stay on your own side of the fence and we’ll get along just fine." That's not getting along, that's getting away. You cannot justify denial of equal treatment to a group of people causing no cognizable social harm just because you do not like them. That's animus, and it is not even a rational basis for governing.

4:35 pm March 27, 2013

Odumba wrote:

"You cannot justify denial of equal treatment to a group of people causing no cognizable social harm just because you do not like them"

Yawnnnn...we've been through this already. Homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex.

Dismissed!

5:04 pm March 27, 2013

confused wrote:

I don't understand why conservatives say they want smaller government but invite government into the most personal decisions in a lifetime. It is conservatives that want government to legislate marriage and the medical procedure of abortion. More liberal people all say let me decide how to run my life but we are told we are for big government. It just makes me confused.

5:35 pm March 27, 2013

missing? wrote:

Without getting into the argument as to whether gay couples should be entitled to the same rights/tax treatment as heterosexuals, isn’t the question for the Supreme Court in the DOMA case based on who defines the term “marriage” at least with respect to the tax code? Suppose a state “allows” all family members to marry each other (one could argue that love for family is stronger than love for a spouse), in effect, the Federal IRS inheritance tax could be usurped by a single state law. Do we really want the laws of one state to overrule the laws of the congress and president? I worked on Wall Street years ago, and I can tell you that if you open a loophole that allows states to circumvent federal tax laws, they will find a way to exploit it to bring in revenue (corporations “marrying” corporations , etc.). It does not appear that the congressional lawyers are making this agreement, what am I missing?

6:43 pm March 27, 2013

@confused wrote:

Easy. You have true conservatives, who believe in small government, low taxes, fiscal prudence, and minimal interference in the lives of Americans as they enjoy their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Then you have the faux conservatives, who are in essence theocrats, who disdain the constitutional principle of separation of church and state and who believe all Americans must adhere to evangelical Christian teachings, wrapping themselves in the flag to hijack conservatism and repackage it as an expressions of "traditional values." They don't bother the consider that the traditions they conflate with the creation of America don't conform to the constitution.

6:44 pm March 27, 2013

GTW wrote:

If two men or two women are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to marry each other, will not the same constitution guarantee the right of a brother and sister to marry, or God forbid (I know you can't bring up that word) a parent who is single to marry their child

6:53 pm March 27, 2013

@GTW wrote:

Short answer: No.

No more than interracial marriage led to the same abominations under the law. Shut up.

6:56 pm March 27, 2013

Michael Anderson wrote:

Wow, the military example of why DOMA is important that Clement makes is absolutely cringe-inducing...

6:57 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

"If two men or two women are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to marry each other, will not the same constitution guarantee the right of a brother and sister to marry, or God forbid (I know you can’t bring up that word) a parent who is single to marry their child"

If the 2nd Amendment gives a citizen the right to bear arms, then every citizen has the right to own a nuclear warhead, right?

If the 1st Amendment provides from Freedom of the Press, then all speech, including the right to cry Fire in a crowded theatre is permissible, right?

It is not reasonable to assume that if gay marriage is deemed a reasonable right, that it opens the door for all manner of mariage to be reasonable rights. I grant that it is possible, but it is by no means likely, and even those rights and liberties inscribed in the Constitution are not infinite, and have long had limitations.

7:22 pm March 27, 2013

Mike wrote:

The House and the Senate voted to pass DOMA by large majorities. The President at the time, Bill Clinton, then signed it.
Not enforcing it is an impeachable offense.

If the Court tries to strike it down, the justices should be impeached.

7:27 pm March 27, 2013

John wrote:

"If the Court tries to strike it down, the justices should be impeached."

Judicial review originates in 1803. Since that time, the Supreme Court has exercised the power to declare laws unconstitutional. You may not like it if a law you favor is deemed unconstitutional, but that is that has been the system for two hundred and ten years.

So what you are suggesting is, if the Supreme Court does exercises the power in this instance as it has exercised it for more than two hundred years, it is an impeachable offense.

Interesting. And shockingly radical.

10:45 pm March 27, 2013

M. Delaurie wrote:

Very ironic that a Christian group used Billy Joel's song to oppose gay marriage.
Obviously they didn't have authorized permission to use his music.
Joel is a longtime supporter of gay marriage rights.

11:06 pm March 27, 2013

Richard W.Houghton wrote:

One has only to look at the world around us, None of the Dog's,cats or any of the Animal's on this Earth' Take up with a mate from their own sex.

Look at the Birds, any of the natural thing's ,none of them do this, It's UN-Natural.

God Created all of this,and it works just fine. Why spoil it NOW !

2:51 pm March 28, 2013

Margo Schulter wrote:

In fact judicial review was discussed in 1787 by James
Wilson in the Pennsylvania debates on whether to ratify the
new United States Constitution -- the future Justice James
Wilson of the United States Supreme Court. He held that if
a law were unconstitutional, then the judiciary would
overturn it, since the Constitution itself was the supreme
law of the land. It's true that _Marbury v. Madison_ was
the Supreme Court case that definitively established this
doctrine, but it was on the table when the Constitution was
debated and ratified by the several States.

Very clearly Section 3 of DOMA (denying federal benefits to
same-sex marriage partners) was motivated at least in good
part by invidious discrimination. Reading the full text of
the House Judiciary Committee from which Justice Kagan
quoted confirms that she wasn't quoting out of context.
Applying _Lawrence v. Texas_ (2003), which overturned laws
criminalizing acts of sodomy in private by consenting
adults, Section 3 of DOMA should be overturned likewise.

However, the easiest and most direct route to overturning
Section 3 of DOMA is, as some of the questions of Chief
Justice Roberts as well as Justice Kennedy and others
suggested, to hold that Congress violated the constraints
of federalism in seeking to define marriage, properly left
to the States. That resolves the case on the merits, and
lets the questions of equal protection, appropriate level
of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation
(a type of gender classification?), etc., percolate through
the lower courts. It also follows the general Supreme Court
precept of not reaching broad constitutional questions when
it is not necessary in order to decide the case before
them.

4:01 pm March 28, 2013

DaneMuhlig wrote:

No one is born Gay, Homosexual or Lesbian anymore than
someone is born a child molester or born a murderer or born
a thief...IT IS A CHOICE! We are all born with a choice. People
CHOOSE RIGHT or WRONG! People choose to live for God or
for themselves and darkness! We all have the choice to choose!

Make a stand for what is right! Make a stand for what is good
and pure! Stand against those who promote what is perverted!
Stand against people who promote what is wrong and Leaders
who ignore God's written Word! You will be held accountable!

I love Gays, Homosexuals and Lesbians! They are welcome
in my house! [Just not in my bed! Ha!]. They are welcome
at my dinner table! I lay down my life for them!! I love them.
But I also love them enough to tell them the truth!
Love homosexuals with 100% love, love, love...but also tell
them the truth because the truth can set them free!! [Jn.8:32].

Gays, Homosexuals and Lesbians need to go back "into the
closet" and fall on their knees and wash their dirty hands and
perverted hearts and scream out to God for forgiveness and
freedom and RADICALLY SELL OUT THEIR SOULS and LIVES
to the living God...who loves them!

12:48 am March 31, 2013

Darlene Z. Lee wrote:

With the Constitutional Amendment of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE....what gives the Supreme Court "standing" to nullify the HOLY SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE between a man and a woman....and give equal importance to same sex marriage. The Justices should ask themselves "What would Jesus Do".

Yesterday at 4:24pm · Edited · Like..

9:35 pm March 31, 2013

Mary H wrote:

How can we waste the time of the "Supreme Court" on a marriage issue which is just about contracts and money between two people when tiny defenseless newborn baby boys are being mutilated every day from stupid circumcisions? The Right to Privacy and Freedom of Speech is totally being taken away from these tiny little baby boys. What is the USA thinking? This is wrong to take the freedoms away and then say “oh, we live in a free country.” Hey, Supreme Court work on a real issue? These boys should be allowed to make the decision about their bodies when they are adults not by some stupid pediatrician who probably lost his FREEDOMS when he was unable to talk for himself. Yes, babies are unable to say, "Stop, do not cut me, I am awake and can feel this horrific pain.” And do we still have to keep paying the medical industry for these mutilations? The USA is just ignoring this atrocity to tiny defenseless baby boys. In the USA, evolution is ignored, boys get part of their body cut off without his permission, get hazed in college and maybe get sent to war to be mutilated again or killed. Where is the Supreme Court when the tiny babies need them? Oh, the Supreme Court is wasting their time talking about taking more Freedoms away from Men.

11:37 am April 5, 2013

Sam McDonough wrote:

Is it greed or selfishness that causes same-sex, filthy rich, able-bodied men to demand government spousal benefits; the same benefits that society has wisely given to help a young man and woman in their desire and struggle to raise children

6:51 pm April 5, 2013

Sam McDonough wrote:

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Childbirthconnection.org say it will cost $234,900 to raise a child from birth to age 17. That is in 2013 dollars.
Homosexuals would be wise to get over there manipulating, self-pity, drama queen, poor me syndrome and join with people to solve real problems. At least one brain surgeon has said when he opens a gay’s head there is nothing in there but sex...or, perhaps he said there was only butt sex.
Another thought to consider: If homosexuality were truly genetic, the problem would take care of itself in one generation; except for a few loose genes here and there.

11:51 am April 11, 2013

Mary H wrote:

Oh boy Sam, you probably need a test for your hormones, maybe a bit low on testosterone.... You probably lost your Civil Rights when you were a baby boy when some stupid doctor cut off part of your genitals The genitals need up to 16 years to finish developing and when part of the male genital is cut off it does not get to finish developing. Circumcision is an invasion of Civil Rights and it is a decision for the male when he is an adult. The USA in 1996 - federal law banning Female Genital Mutilations was passed in the U.S., what an atrocity to keep cutting boys and taking their civil rights away.
Marriage is a signed piece of paper contract between 2 people and when they get divorced another piece of paper is signed. The Supreme Court needs to focus on Civil Rights being taken away, not on a paper marriage contract. Human Dignity is taken away when males do not get to decide if they keep all of their genitals.

12:08 pm April 11, 2013

Mary H wrote:

Just want to get your attention to the Civil Rights issue. If the USA truly has Freedom of Choice than it is a Civil Rights issue who you sign a contract with and the two Adults decision.

4:02 am April 16, 2013

Paige Allen wrote:

At a glance, it all comes down to one thing, a separation of church and state. People are saying their 'church' gets to 'state' who we are to love. What of the people who have a "God" who promotes Love, regardless of their sex? Should each church define the stature for marriage? Or, should 'Marriage' be thrown way completely for a "Union" and have everyone be treated equally, regardless of it's title? How can, in a nation where more than 50% of Marriages are ending in divorce, be 'harmed' by more people wanting to be married?

1:34 am July 28, 2013

http://www.thelawyer.com/ketenciketenci/414923.supplier wrote:

Aw, this was an exceptionally nice post. Taking the time and actual effort to make a superb article… but what can I say… I procrastinate a whole lot and never manage to get anything done.

5:12 pm March 21, 2014

Joel Busher wrote:

10 Reasons for Criminalizing Homosexuality

Reason #1 Gay activist have corrupted and have used corrupted judges to topple the Constitutional Will of the American People. The right to homosexuality is not an American right but a judge made right.

Reason #2: The gay political activism is corrupting American children in the public educational system beginning in kindergarten and will not stop until the death penalty is enacted for the crime of homosexuality.

Reason #3 The use of innumerable public bathrooms for their sexual escapades is destroying the decency of our community.

Reason #4 The visible “lewd and lascivious” gay pride parades is destroying local communities and cities, and is perverting our local administrators and police.

Reason #5 The death penalty for homosexuality is commanded by the God in the Bible

Reason #6 The perversion of child adoption is a threat to that child where a home ought to offer a high quality example of a home based on sensible values.

Reason #7 The gay community vicious attacks against the Christian community should not be tolerated. The power of the majority of American have the right to restore the punishment for homosexuality.

Reason #8 “George Washington in his Farewell Address writes "Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."

Those who discourage public debate by name calling are a danger and threat to the very nature of free government. Jesus stated that calling someone "Roca" (empty headed) is a punishable offence. Why? Because it destroys the process of enlightenment which is required for making the majority sensible for important social impacting decisions. Name calling is a criminal offense. The Gay Community relentless use of name calling such as homophobic, troll, moron, bigot, nut-case, and other derogator statements destroy public debate and destroying free government based on the enlightenment of the majority and is criminal and another reason to make homosexuality illegal. God in his wisdom made homosexuality a capital offense.

Reason #9 The relentless corrupting of American people by media outlets for gay perversion must be brought to the end. Restoring the punishment for homosexuality will end media corruption. Homosexuality is the turning state and federal law against the moral with huge penalties in order to support the immoral.

Reason #10 The gay community has resorted to death threats for anyone who opposes them. This in itself should alarm every American, and anyone who support the gay community and their tyrannical behavior must be considered an enemy to free government.

*Article VIII a new proposal to the US Constitution makes God’s law American law.

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

About Washington Wire

Washington Wire is one of the oldest standing features in American journalism. Since the Wire launched on Sept. 20, 1940, the Journal has offered readers an informal look at the capital. Now online, the Wire provides a succession of glimpses at what’s happening behind hot stories and warnings of what to watch for in the days ahead. The Wire is led by Reid J. Epstein, with contributions from the rest of the bureau. Washington Wire now also includes Think Tank, our home for outside analysis from policy and political thinkers.